Readers' comments

I am fascinated that the author, and the Economist, have brought attention to the seeming parallels in policy between the Vatican and China. I, coincidentally, have been struck by another unmistakable parallel between the Vatican and China. (An open and lighthearted nature is advised for to conclude this article unnerved.)
The parallel is, for those unfamiliar with the origins of the Vatican and its (I must admit) unsavory history, the Vatican, from the perspective of true Christianity, is spiritual Babylon, from which its inhabitants must flee, while China is the world’s economic Babylon from which countries must cease trade.
What this means is that counties which overlook China’s abuses and social injustices to benefit from its cheap products, will as America has done, suffer severe and destabilizing economic consequences of rising unemployment.
No country (wide context here) which aims to provide adequate wage rates and the other social benefits characteristic of modern democratic states can hope to compete with the combined skullduggery of China’s social injustices and its unfair trade practices.
The losses in jobs will likely be continuous in those sectors in which the trading partners compete, and places these countries under intense economic stress as they grapple with the pervasive issue of forced economic restructuring and transformation to create (or should it be recreate?) new jobs for those lost to China’s cheap tricks.
Maybe America can comment on this.

should really say "The Analects," as in 'The Economist', suggesting a certain level of veneration.

The Analects was written by the most revered philosopher and teacher in China, Confucius. For more than two millennia, it's been at the core of Chinese civilization and had served as the ultimate guide for Chinese civil behavior. By addressing it callously as 'Analects' instead of 'The Analects', TE shows irreverence towards our Chinese culture. It's not just merely a name, you know; it reflects your attitude towards something we hold dear and respect. Please change it.

'The church is not happy with China’s treatment of its own Catholics...'

Huh! And how did Western imperialists, in the name of the Roman Catholic church, treat Chinese people and immigrants under their domain. Ten times worse than the flack that these Chinese Catholics are getting.

China should never loosen up its control on religion, including Christianity. After all, Christianity, especially the Catholic religion was a handmaiden of Western imperialism in the world for 500+ years. Don't even give them a tiny foothold.

Both men appear as the paramount ruler of their respective organizations, yet are beholden to their near-peers in their respective power-structures. Thus they are constrained; not unlike a chief executive in a representative democracy (as opposed to a true "one-man rule" system).

The Chinese understand the persuasion of religion in diluting their power control. Hence the socialist politics evolve more into single state control and not into the democratic system as evidently not a good example given the USA and European mayhem. But many religious bodies can making good inroad in China albeit shadow overseeing and subtle warnings. China, after the abysses of Godless era, is rich ground for the spirituals. Where there is strong morality, like in Scandinavian countries, religion will have to take a robust test. But for the emerging economies, the assistance package coming from religious orders can be persuasive. The body is weak but the spirit even wavering.

Very interesting article and very interesting comparison. The parallels are there for all to see. Both leaders no doubt are aware that the survival of their respective regime to a large degree depends on the riddance of officials who put their snouts in the public trough.
Of the two, who is more likely to succeed - at least in the short term? The answer to this question lies in: Who is more likely to have a stronger sense of crisis and urgency? One of the two has under his control one of the world's largest armed forces equipped with nuclear weapons as well as a tightly knit, omnipresent secret police, whilst the other has none. As a result, one can afford lots of window-dressing shows whilst the other cannot.

There has always been a link between religion and governmental authority. Maybe separate but not gone. If not "God", then a leadership cult. Things don't work otherwise. In the effort to keep things working, the state looks to some sort of transcendent fundamental axiom to validate their authority. Darwin is grinning; he understood this complexity, expanding polity and authority from hunter-gatherer groups to billion groups.

The comparison in this article serves only the fantasies of the neocolonialist class in the West and their PR machine. The Catholic Church is built on superstition and fairy tales. China has raised 400 million people out of poverty, thrown off the yoke of imperialists and neocolonialists and advanced their society to the benefit of their people.

The parallels between Pope Francis and the new Chinese leaders in their fights against luxury-loving servants may end here.
I believe the new Papacy understood the significance of such a battle for the Church's very survival, whereas China's approach is opportunistic as it shhots at enemies under the aegis of a crusade against corruption. The Vatican is longing for transparency but China's commitment remains to be seen.
In this perspective it's not surprising that the Heads of the two organizations haven't found the time to meet. I'm even convinced that the Vatican's new approach will make it harder to get to China's upper echelons. The old (yet to be thoroughly dismantled) Vatican had more things in common with (old and new) China when it comes to murkiness and shadiness.

The Vatican's problem goes way beyond just rampant greed and corruption. They have the problem with pedophile priests too, which is all over the place, in so many parishes, both in the cities and in remote areas. It's not gonna be easy. So far, a comment made by Francis' assistant suggests that the church is not ready to be serious about licking this problem. He said: "The problem of these pedophile priests is a disease; not a crime." Go figure.

China doesn't seem to accept religion much, or even parts of their own country. Only recently, they had ordered the Chinese students of a Christian international school to withdraw. Some of the things regarding Buddhism and Christianity are very hard to find in China. However, some positive changes have been occurring recently, though they should have came sooner.The recent crackdown on the lifestyle of officials is strongly supported by the people(not the officials, of course). More changes are needed, but the hardships that the government faces are understandable. It is the third largest country with the largest population in the world we're talking about here, after all.

Buddhist is welcomed, even by some Chinese leaders. Some of them have visited some famous Buddhist temple. Christianity, on the other hand, has a hard struggle. Just what I see, most Chinese have no faith in any God. Maybe because we're atheist.

Read up on the history of the Catholic Church. It's a dogmatic institution that is obsessed with mind control and evangelizing with the purpose of expanding their membership. Throughout its history it was rife with corruption. See Leo X and the sale of 'indolencias', in other words, dispensation from the punishment for sins committed by believers. If the sinner pays lots of money to church, they can receive such dispensations in terms of forgiveness, or lighter sentences on their sins.

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.